Idk.

why wouldn't you rather be in sb vs a straddler 3handed?

The btn already has position post flop.

You are putting in two blind big blinds in order to get position on one street (pf)

what does your hand chart look like in bb vs a straddle? what is your strategy in continuing?

I think in order to start answering your question one needs to start analyzing the following and thinking from there:

1. What % of hands do you open from the button without a straddle in a 3-handed game?

2. What % of hands do you defend from the button when facing a 3-bet from the SB and the BB folds, getting 6:1, assuming you straddle the button in a 3-handed game?

3. What % of hands do you defend from the button when facing a 3-bet from the BB after the SB folds, getting 5.5:1, assuming you straddle the button in a 3-handed game?

4. What hands in scenario 2 are now being played in position that would have been folded in scenario 1? Are you winning more or less now?

5. What hands in scenario 3 are now being played in position that would have been folded in scenario 1? Are you winning more or less now?

Please clarify: is this BB's defense range if SB 3bets 37.56% or 51.43%?
Thank you.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

What is a "hyper draw game"?
Thank you.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

I made up the term. I am referring to 2-7 triple draw, badugi, and badacy. Unconventional games of poker.

Wacky: let's say 50/100/100. Q4 and q5 are weird. We have position post flop whether straddle or not.

To me The biggest differences are that when we have a good hand, we can put in 3+ big blinds instead of ~2. But, we are forced to play a lot of bad hands for 3+bets when we would have folded.

Great observation, Bob148!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

most of the hands you're opening with on btn don't wanna get 3bet either. not much equity difference in 100% vs 50% than 55% vs 30%

I respectfully and strongly disagree with the following assertion:

"the best player in the game (3-handed or 9-handed) increases his EV when there's more money in the pot"

If the average player in the game is tighter than optimal, I would tend to agree. But if the average player in the game is looser than optimal, I would tend to disagree. In that case, increasing the pot size would make your opponent's play closer to optimal.


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

I'm not sure this is a trivial argument. Here is a quote from Tphirana's Well Post regarding 3 betting:

"There's a big difference between being in the small blind and being in a non-blind

position. That quarter of a big bet that's already invested is a big incentive to 3-

bet a lot of hands. You can actually 3-bet more hands profitably from the SB vs. CO

than you can on the button vs. the CO."

I think the above quote implies that position is worth less than 1/4 of a big bet. If I'm right, then the above argument has not proven that straddling the button is profitable.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

I very much think it's worth my time, that's why I want to play

Yes, but in 4 and 5, you're comparing playing a hand in position in a bloated pot, against a hand that you would have never played. So ignoring for second, the possibility of 4 betting preflop, the essence of the question is:

With a bloated pot and position, are you making or losing money in that vacuum scenario. If you are winning more money in this limited situation, then you have ergo proven that straddling the button is profitable. Because, adding in the times when you can 4-bet with a premium hand will only add to the expected value.

Now, if the answer to the above query, is no, actually we would have been better off just folding, then you must compare what the expected value of being able to 3bet or 4bet your premium hands vs the expected value of just being able to come in for a 2-bet and see if that more than offsets the losses, to make the overall live straddle a positive play.

I'm simply trying to break down the problem into manageable steps, if that makes sense. So then, you can go and run some equity sims/calcs and take your exploration from there. But anecdotally, in a headsup match, if you could live straddle the button, would you?

Breaking the problem into steps is good. That's my biggest complaint about this thread. There are a bunch of people saying that it's obvious that straddling button is good, and then a lot of bad analogies as proof.

I don't think the answer is obvious, but I lean towards it being (more) +EV to straddle BTN 3 handed. I'd want to think about it more and discuss ideas on why/why not.

--If you ordinarily fold a hand on BTN, you are saying the hand is not profitable to play in an unbloated pot. That hand can't magically be a winner in a bloated pot.

Then you integrate the value of losing hands that you're forced to play. That number could be big (lol-straddle is dumb). It could be that 20% of your range is slightly unprofitable (area is small) and that then you could argue about other benefits -- say, the button is the biggest beneficiary of a bloated pot.

What % of hands do you play on the button in a soft 3 handed live game? We've self selected a good game, because we're going home rather than play 3h with 2 crushers.

Pretty sure this is incorrect and exactly the reason for the disagreement. Plenty of hands are folds on the button but profitable in the big blind vs the small blind only. The three blinds situation is analogous.

^ I can agree with that.

I think a lot of BTN-straddle EV comes from the threat of us exercising our option.

When we open BTN with a range something like 40-60%, BB can defend super wide -- 80%+.

In a SB v BB spot, SB tends to open ~66%. This is analogous to BB vs BTN straddle spot.


So, in Wacky's example, I found Q4 and Q5 confusing. Given that we know SB or BB has a hand they want to play, I'd say our marginal hand would still be -EV. The EV comes from extra PF fold equity. When we do have to *play* these extra marginal hands, that is bad news.

There are certain people who play much worse in a 3 handed straddle environment and certain people who play much better. There are times when normally passive players will start playing more aggressive and stickier pre and post. There are times when people who have adjusted relatively well to three handed play lose their minds because of the straddle.

37.56%

Right, absolutely. Much like the main value in our bb is getting walks. I mean the bb sucks and we lose lots of money there, but it's worse for us if someone straddles full ring. Cuz we can never ever get a walk. Most of our value in limit poker is just winning the antes.

There is some good insight/thought in this thread. No comment on the strategic aspects, though to me it's the more interesting and challenging part.

In an ideal world, we'd be able to walk into a casino, scan the room, and immediately identify our edge in every game down to the nearest hundredth of a big bet. Any time someone suggests adding a game, changing the rules, a prop bet, etc. etc. a number would magically appear above everyone’s head telling us how much we’re winning or losing per hour in this proposed game.

Wow I guess I'm a live player now that I'm rereading this.

In a broad sense, the decision to straddle or not to straddle simply comes down to determining edge:

Are my opponents making bigger mistakes relative to myself in a typical 3-handed game or in a 3-handed game with a straddle? And has the number of opportunities for my opponents to make a mistake (decisions) gone up, down, or stayed the same? We also need to account for the fact that the game isn't static. There's potential for more players to join or not to join which not only alters our edge but the longevity of the game.

There is no definitive answer to this question and the answer will differ for every person and in every unique situation. It can be estimated for each person however and potentially to a fine degree.

Sorry for the confusing question. It wasn't meant to be a question that you could answer in a vacuum and voila, have the answer to the ultimate question. It was more geared towards getting one to think about the problem in smaller discrete steps and then seeing where those lines of thought and analysis take you.

If you're willing to make some simplifying assumptions post-flop, you can work out the game tree for all possibilities 3-handed preflop, and see the various cold-hot equities, range v. range in both the headsup and 3-handed spots.

Run some of these exercises, what you find might surprise you.

Better players don't seem to do it.